undefined | Better HN

0 pointsibz3y ago0 comments

You are assuming that Russia has any interest beyond the borders of the USSR, which is quite a strong assumption. By this logic you probably also supported the invasion of Iraq based on the assumption that they were producing nuclear weapons. However, decisions to join a war need to be taken based on logical and provable arguments, not based on irrational fears and assumptions.

> Values. In the end Europeans have some values and most importantly EU is built on some fundamental values. Democracy, human rights and etc

So we should be voting whether we want to support Ukraine, a non-EU entity, in any way - whether through imposing sanctions to Russia (which will later bite us back) or through sending them weapons (which will only escalate the war). It seems like you are arguing for straight out authoritarianism: joining a war against popular support.

> I can't agree that "most people in Eastern Europe have a very hard life already". Define "most" and "very hard life". It just means nothing. The thinking is that being at war is on another level "very hard".

If you spent any time with regular people in the Eastern Europe you would understand. But again, you are arguing that we are or should be in a war and hence this is acceptable. It is not. It is pure gaslighting. At this point it seems like you are pro-war and would say anything to convince people that they should be part of a war. I wonder why.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

AndrewThrowaway3y ago· 3 in thread

> You are assuming that Russia has any interest beyond the borders of the USSR

Again refer to Medvedev's comment about "the creation of an open Eurasia from Lisbon to Vladivostok".

Then again what would be Russia's interest in USSR? Do you believe that Russia has any rights to Poland, Ukraine, Estonia?

ibzOP3y ago

I don't believe they have any rights to invade any countries, including Ukraine. But I also don't believe in joining a war against a country that invaded another country just because "you think they might not stop at that".

If you join a war against somebody that never attacked you in the first place, you are an aggressor, regardless of what they did to others.

mdp20213y ago

> regardless of what they did to others

No. Very normal ethos is that if you see something occurring that looks "wrong", first you assess to be sure, then upon confirmation you intervene.

Normally the difficulty is in assessment. Sometimes it is not even difficult.

AndrewThrowaway3y ago

I am not really sure if there is some hidden agenda in your logics but I think there is.

I thought it started to show when you mentioned that Russia being interested in borders of USSR. But then you backtracked from it.

> If you join a war against somebody that never attacked you in the first place, you are an aggressor, regardless of what they did to others.

That would be crazy, wouldn't it? Any bigger country could just attack any neighbor and all other would just continue as if nothing happened? In your mind Russia can just attack e.g. Estonia and everybody should just ignore it? Basically you are not agreeing to it but it is a thing between Estonia and Russia only.

You are either Russian troll or just consumed too much Russian propaganda. Just listen to yourself.

Everybody should just continue trading with Russia because it is the best for their citizens.

Russia invading other countries is just between Russia and victim country.

If any other country is against aggressor they are "involving citizens into war". They should vote if they want to involve into war.

Geography is not important for you. You are ignoring anything I say about Russian rhetoric.

Classic whataboutism "look at Iraq". As if somehow Iraq justifies Russian aggression.

I don't think you are "let's just trade with Russia because it is the best for us". You are just pro-Russia and that's it.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse